Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech about the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Of course, she recognizes that in our Parliament, which is the Westminster system that we have inherited from the United Kingdom, it is the Crown that is responsible for making budgets, not Parliament. Parliament approves budgets that come from the Crown. I wonder if she would like to comment on that role. She seems to be saying in her remarks that the opposition members, individually, should have their fingerprints all over the budget, creating a system of what are called earmarks in the United States. Does she believe that it is an appropriate format for making budgets? I would like to comment on another aspect and add a secondary question. To what extent are opposition members using the Parliamentary Budget Officer role for partisan purposes, as opposed to trying to clarify and use it for information?

As I also mentioned, for 48 years the Library of Parliament has served members of Parliament. Its employees did not grandstand or hold regular press conferences; they simply did their job and served Parliament. That is what the Library of Parliament has done in the past and that is what we expect the Library of Parliament and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it really boils to what is need for making this position an officer of Parliament? Under the position’s current mandate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances, government estimates and trends in the Canadian economy. The role is not designed to be an independent watchdog. It is not designed to be an auditor general, chief electoral officer, privacy commissioner or access to information commissioner. All of those are independent officers, but that is not what this role was designed to be. The PBO is functioning perfectly well within the Library of Parliament, and that is where it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, I recall being on the Library of Parliament committee as my first committee when I was elected in 2008. We studied the issue of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. All the witnesses who were part of that process said that the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly overstepped the responsibility of the role in the way they had envisioned it. I recall a point when the Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke out on a very specific issue during an election. I would like the member’s impression of it and whether he thinks it was unprecedented and, for that matter, appropriate.

The role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is simple. It is to provide non-partisan information so that MPs can be watchdogs. It is not that the PBO is to be a watchdog of the government. That is what the opposition members want to transform the PBO into, and that is a dangerous road to go down because it could lead the PBO to being subject to legitimate criticisms of partisanship. It is to equip members of Parliament, unless the opposition members believe they are no longer effective watchdogs of the government. Maybe that is why they want to change this role.

Mr. Saxton’s comments are interesting in their blatant criticism of Kevin Page’s term.

The watchdog distinction is also an interesting point. The opposition parties want to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be an independent officer of Parliament. Would Mr. Watson consider the auditor general a watchdog? Would the auditor general thus be subject to “legitimate criticisms of partisanship?”

Mr. Holder seems to be hinting at the release of the Afghanistan audit in 2008—we reviewed that particular moment last week.

Previous consideration of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the future of the role here, here, here and here.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/photo-gallery-mps-and-plaid-speaker-scheers-robbie-burns-dinner/feed/1Members’ statements intriguehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/members-statements-intrigue/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/members-statements-intrigue/#commentsMon, 19 Nov 2012 17:45:02 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=316353Peter Goldring thinks the Conservatives were trying to mock him with a members’ statement.
He was, however, upset by what he felt was an incidence of “somebody is having a …

Peter Goldring thinks the Conservatives were trying to mock him with a members’ statement.

He was, however, upset by what he felt was an incidence of “somebody is having a little bit of fun” at his expense in the House Nov. 8. That day, Mr. Goldring rose to deliver a member’s statement thanking a group of Ukrainian Parliamentary interns who were leaving the Hill. After he finished, Conservative MP Ed Holder (London West, Ont.) rose to make a statement on Mothers Against Drunk Driving. “I’m doing a serious statement in the House of Commons, and Ed Holder follows right away with a statement that is incorrect that says ‘Don’t drink and drive,’” stated Mr. Goldring. “I’m sure that I am going to be vindicated on it. But there is a certain amount of sensitivity do it. How can it, coincidently the statement flat-out like that following right up on my statement in the House of Commons? I think that that’s just childish behaviour,” he said.

But Mr. Holder said that his statement had nothing to do with Mr. Goldring. “I thought it highly coincidental that Peter spoke and I spoke, but he didn’t even come up in the thought process, quite frankly,” he said. Mr. Goldring refused to say whether he believed it was Mr. Holder, or the office of Government House Leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.), or another individual, who intended to embarrass him. “This claim is completely false. Mr. Holder’s statement had nothing to do with Mr. Goldring,” said Fraser Malcolm, Mr. Van Loan’s director of communications, in an email. “Furthermore, the Speaker determines when the Independent Members of Parliament, including Mr. Goldring, are recognized to deliver a statement. We receive no advance notice of whether or when Mr. Goldring will be recognized,” he added.

A preliminary hearing into the charges against Mr. Goldring was conducted last Friday.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-farce-is-strong-in-these-ones-2/feed/1The Commons: The joke is on you, Canadahttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-joke-is-on-you-canada/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-joke-is-on-you-canada/#commentsMon, 17 Sep 2012 23:25:44 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=294570Aaron Wherry on the first day back

Conservative MP Andrew Saxton was on his feet a couple rows back, claiming that the leader of the opposition had spent the summer promoting the idea of a tax on carbon. Mr. Baird apparently thought this was funny. Mr. Saxton had been preceded by Shelly Glover. And Mr. Saxton and Ms. Glover would be followed by Conservative MP John Williamson, all rising in the moments before Question Period to recite their assigned talking points.

Peter Van Loan had accused Mr. Mulcair of favouring a carbon tax this morning at a news conference to mark the start of the fall sitting. Two hours later, the Conservative party press office had then issued a “fact check” repeating the claim. Veteran Affairs Minister Steven Blaney posted the talking point to Facebook. Tim Uppal, the minister of state for democratic reform, tweeted it. Minister of International Co-operation Julian Fantino tweeted it too.

All of this, each and every missive and every single individual willing to put their name to this claim, is part of a remarkable farce.

Let us review the basics.

During the 2008 and 2011 elections, the NDP proposed the introduction of a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And during his run for the NDP leader, Mr. Mulcair offered his own cap-and-trade proposal.

It is on this basis that the Conservatives now accuse the New Democrats of seeking to impose a carbon tax.

You might remember a carbon tax as what Stephane Dion’s Liberals proposed in 2008. Mr. Harper said Mr. Dion’s proposal would “screw everybody.” Thing is, while the Conservatives were damning a carbon tax, they were proposing to pursue a North American cap-and-trade system. The Conservatives put it in their platform. And the Harper government put it in its Throne Speech. Jim Prentice lobbied the Alberta government to join the Harper government’s initiative. As late as December 2009, the Harper government claimed to be “working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap-and-trade system that will ultimately be aligned with the emerging cap-and-trade program in the United States.”

“Canadians and people across the globe know,” Mr. Harper declared this afternoon, challenged by Mr. Mulcair to explain what he was doing to safeguard the economy, “we have a government smart enough to reject dumb ideas like a $20 billion carbon tax.”

The Conservatives stood to applaud.

Awhile later, the NDP’s Linda Duncan asked the Harper government about its spending on advertising. Tony Clement stood and asked that Ms. Duncan apologize for wanting to impose a carbon tax scheme.

The NDP’s Malcolm Allen stood and demanded the Harper government do something for farmers impacted by this summer’s drought. Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz stood and accused the NDP of “fanning” a carbon tax.

Ed Holder was sent up by his own side to ask the Government House leader about the government’s legislative agenda. Mr. Van Loan stood and fumed about a carbon tax.

Conservative MP Blake Richards was sent up by the Conservatives to ask the Trade Minister a question. Ed Fast stood and lamented for a carbon tax.

Maybe the Conservatives think you’re stupid. Maybe, more charitably, they just think they’re smarter than you. Or maybe they assume that you’re cynical enough—or enough of you are cynical—about this stuff that they can safely carry on like this. Or maybe they’re terribly confused themselves.

But sitting at home you probably shouldn’t be joining in the laughter. Because ultimately the joke is on you.

NDP MP Irene Mathyssen responds to the letter three Conservative MPs sent to the London Free Press.

Unfortunately, London’s Conservative MPs are simply not telling the truth in their joint letter “NDP carbon tax a job killer”. Neither the NDP nor our leader have advocated for a Carbon tax – we have, in fact, opposed it whenever one has been suggested.

What we have proposed and Mr. Mulcair is still proposing is a cap-and-trade system. It is very similar to the one advocated by the Conservatives in their 2008 platform, something they have failed to deliver.

Here, again, are the reasons why the current Conservative position is farcical.

With Thomas Mulcair visiting Brantford, Conservative MP Phil McColeman uses the phrase “carbon tax” three times in the space of a five-sentence quote (and his remarks are reported without being challenged).

And with Mr. Mulcair visiting London, Conservative MPs Susan Truppe, Joe Preston and Ed Holder send a letter to the Free Press to complain that, while in the city, the NDP leader didn’t mention a policy he hasn’t proposed.

Mr. Mulcair has proposed pursuing a cap-and-trade system. Mr. McColeman, Mr. Preston and Mr. Holder were Conservative candidates in 2008, when their party platform included a promise to pursue a continental cap-and-trade system. They were duly elected Conservative MPs when the Harper government included that promise in its Throne Speech and when the Harper government was apparently working with the provinces to establish that cap-and-trade system.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-farce-is-strong-in-these-ones/feed/6Happy Canada Dayhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/happy-canada-day/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/happy-canada-day/#commentsSun, 01 Jul 2012 15:26:29 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=271458Aaron Wherry on who said what on July 1

After the jump, a video from the Prime Minister and statements from Thomas Mulcair and Bob Rae.

Thomas Mulcair.

As Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast celebrate our great country’s 145th birthday, let us also celebrate the values for which Canada has become known around the world. Values like diversity, tolerance, respect and social justice that have made Canada a unique place where people from all over the world can come together and feel at home.

Whether you’re spending this day with family or friends, in a small rural town or in one of our great cities, remember that there is far more that unites us than divides us and, for that, we can all be very proud.

So, on behalf of my family, my team and New Democrats across this country, I wish you and your family a happy Canada Day!

Bob Rae.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast are joined in celebration of Canada’s 145thbirthday. Today we reflect on what it means to be a citizen of Canada, its many achievements and its proud place in the world.

Among many other things, being Canadian means being boldly hopeful. Being Canadian means knowing we live in a country built on the foundational beliefs of openness, equality of opportunity and respect for diversity. Being Canadian means that the prosperity we create is a prosperity that is deeply and widely shared across this country.

Canada is the country of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada is a country of fierce, rugged and stunning natural landscapes unmatched anywhere else in the world. Canada is a country of industriousness and of a distinguished and influential culture. Canada is our home, and with all it has to give we cannot help but be proud. On this day we celebrate all Canada is and all it has to offer.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our Parliamentary Caucus I wish everyone a happy Canada Day.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/happy-canada-day/feed/12A maquette of Elizabeth IIhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/a-maquette-of-elizabeth-ii/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/a-maquette-of-elizabeth-ii/#commentsThu, 23 Feb 2012 03:50:56 +0000Mitchel Raphaelhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=241494As part of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee there was a ceremony unveiling a maquette of Elizabeth II riding a horse that will stay on the Hill.
…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/a-maquette-of-elizabeth-ii/feed/0Whose fault is it anyway?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/whose-fault-is-it-anyway/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/whose-fault-is-it-anyway/#commentsThu, 09 Feb 2012 17:58:17 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=238927The McGuinty and Harper governments blame each other for the situation at Electro-Motive in London.
Ottawa could have prevented the loss of hundreds of jobs at an Ontario locomotive plant …

The McGuinty and Harper governments blame each other for the situation at Electro-Motive in London.

Ottawa could have prevented the loss of hundreds of jobs at an Ontario locomotive plant if it had acted to modernize Canada’s “outdated” foreign investment laws, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Monday … However, the federal government said a month ago that the takeover was never looked at by Investment Canada because it fell under the $300-million threshold. A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister’s Office said the government sympathizes with the workers, but there was nothing Ottawa could do. ”This issue fell entirely within the powers of the McGuinty government, there was no ability for the federal government to intervene,” spokeswoman Sara MacIntyre wrote in an email. That’s not true, McGuinty said. What happened at Electro-Motive wasn’t a labour relations issue, “and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.”

I helped arrange discussions with the federal Labour Minister between the Company, the Union and the Mayor. These were in an effort to get everyone back to the bargaining table … The calls took place in mid-January.

Meanwhile, Mike Moffatt busts the myth that Electro-Motive received a direct subsidy from the Harper government. And the House is spending the day debating the following NDP motion.

That this House condemn the decision of Caterpillar Inc. to close its Electro-Motive Diesel plant in London, Ontario, with a loss of 450 jobs, and that of Papiers White Birch to close its Quebec City plant, with a loss of 600 jobs, and call on the government to table, within 90 days, draft amendments to the Investment Canada Act to ensure that foreign buyers are held to public and enforceable commitments on the ‘net benefit’ to Canada and on the protection of Canadian jobs.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/movember-madness/feed/5Who will be the next Speaker of the House?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-need-of-a-speaker/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-need-of-a-speaker/#commentsThu, 02 Jun 2011 15:02:01 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=195170LIVE BLOG: Aaron Wherry reports from the Speaker's election

Greetings from the press gallery of the House of Commons, where we will shortly commence with live coverage of the 41st Parliament’s Speaker election. MPs are presently filing into the chamber, acquainting and reacquainting themselves with each other. The proceedings will commence around 11 o’clock.

There are presently eight candidates seeking the post: Dean Allison, Barry Devolin, Ed Holder, Lee Richardson, Denise Savoie, Andrew Scheer, Bruce Stanton and Merv Tweed. Officially, Justin Trudeau will appear on the first ballot, but that is owing to his having not notified the clerk in time that he did not wish to be in the running (MPs must officially opt out of the Speaker’s election).

Very shortly the Usher of the Black Rod will arrive to inform the House that its collective presence is required at the Senate. The Speaker of the Senate will then inform the House that it should choose a Speaker if it wishes to proceed with business. The House will reconvene and Louis Plamondon, as the longest serving MP in the House, will take the chair. The candidates for Speaker will then be called to stand and briefly state their respective cases.

11:11am. Well the message has been delivered and the members—most of them at least—are now shuffling out and down the hall for the arduous journey to the Senate. For those of you keeping track of the seating plan at home, the new official opposition frontbench goes Davies, Perreault, Duncan, Angus, Crowder, Boulerice, Chisholm, Julian, Nash, Davies, Layton, Mulcair, Comartin, Harris, Dewar, Chow, Godin, Boivin, Stoffer, Christopherson, Allen. The four Bloc MPs and Elizabeth May are in the far southeast corner, just behind the diminished Liberal caucus. Thirteen Conservatives MP spill over to the opposition side in the northeast corner.

11:26am. Mr. Plamondon has taken the chair and Mr. Trudeau has formally notified the House that he does not wish to be Speaker (various members made a show of being disappointed). On then to the speeches.

11:33am. Dean Allison promises “thoughtful discernment” and aims to “maintain the sanctity of this place.” He is also keen on free speech. Barry Devolin ventures that this goes beyond party or friendship. He targets Ed Holder and claims he himself has sufficient business experience. He targets Lee Richardson and claims he himself has sufficient life experience. He targets Denise Savoie and claims he himself is sufficiently bilingual. He targets Bruce Stanton and claims he is of sufficient temperament. The gist of this, apparently, is that he is closest to the perfect Speaker, a unique mix of everything anyone else can offer.

11:48am. Ed Holder says he is standing for Speaker because other MPs, from various parties, encouraged him to do so. He promises not only greater decorum and civility, but also fiscal responsibility. Lee Richardson recalls the “oratorical masters” he has admired and suggests he has the “personal fortitude” to take on the hallowed duties of Speaker. He admits his French needs a little work.

11:53am. Denise Savoie vows a “singular focus on raising the tone of debate.” Part of this: “concrete procedural changes.” Helpfully reminds everyone here that the goal is supposed to be good public policy. She suggests the Speaker exists to nurture a proper environment and she imagines a place of witty, informed, intelligent debate. She asks MPs to support her “only” if they are willing to do their part.

11:59am. Andrew Scheer recalls the words of William Lenthall and refers members to his experience and performance as deputy speaker. Proceeds with a couple jokes about his age (he’s 32). Says the standing orders must be more strictly enforced and suggests he won’t allow consistently disrespectful members to ask questions. There is promptly some heckling from the Liberal corner about government ministers and John Baird.

12:05pm. Bruce Stanton recalls his experience running his family’s resort and the lessons of working with others. He notes the balance between decorum and the privileges of members. Hopes Canadians will be able to take “greater pride” in what happens here. According to his French teacher, he speaks the language on an intermediate level.

12:09pm. Merv Tweed works in a reference to the Winnipeg Jets. He laments a “severe decline of decorum in this wonderful chamber,” up to and including the fact members attack each other. Promises to be the Speaker for all members. Says he has been serving with “respect and dignity” and will continue to do so if he’s elected today.

12:13pm. Members will now scatter for an hour to “reflect.” Which is to say they will now go partake of the hospitality suites.

1:20pm. We have reconvened now for the first vote (six “polling stations” are set up in the centre aisle and MPs line up to cast their ballots). It is essentially a run-off vote until someone gets more than 50 per cent. The candidate with the lowest total and anyone who receives less than five per cent of the ballots cast will be dropped after each vote. Last time around it took five ballots to elect Peter Milliken. The first time a Speaker was elected, in 1986, the vote required 11 ballots and went until 2am.

1:34pm. It would be tacky to dwell too long on this whole “My, those NDP MPs are young” thing, but… along the back row of the NDP side, Pierre-Luc Dusseault and Mylene Freeman are seatmates. Their combined age? 42.

2:07pm. With nothing much to do while the ballots are counted, one can only sit and watch the MPs mill and chat. After awhile it begins to feel like watching a zoo inclosure.

2:10pm. First ballot results are in. Dean Allison and Bruce Stanton have been eliminated. Off to the second ballot.

3:00pm. Second ballot results are in. Ed Holder has been eliminated. Off to the third ballot.

3:27pm. In case you were wondering, the Throne Speech will be delivered at 3pm tomorrow by Governor General David Johnston. We should be just about done selecting a Speaker by then.

3:40pm. Third ballot results are in. Barry Devolin has been eliminated. Off to the fourth ballot.

4:08pm. There are various theories now as to how this vote plays out. None of them, of course, are based on anything like actual numbers because the results are not revealed. One possibility that’s not being discussed: a new Speaker is elected, but suddenly Peter Milliken’s theme music (the Tragically Hip’s “Courage”) starts playing. Everyone looks around shocked and then Mr. Milliken steps out from behind the throne, smashes the winner over the head with a steel chair and reveals that, when no one was paying attention three months ago, he and a band of rebel MPs passed a motion to make him Speaker for life.

4:19pm. Fourth ballot results are in. Merv Tweed has been eliminated. Off to the fifth ballot.

4:23pm. After disappearing for a bit, the Prime Minister is back in his seat and once more going over a pile of documents at his desk. Rest assured that, despite the instability caused by this Speaker’s election, Mr. Harper will not be distracted from his paperwork.

4:43pm. One of the younger NDP MPs just skipped up an aisle to her spot in the back row.

4:48pm. Elizabeth May is going around handing pieces of paper to newly elected MPs. Apparently it’s for some kind of party. I’m going to go ahead and allege that it is a pool party at her house.

4:58pm. Fifth ballot results are in. Lee Richardson has been eliminated, leaving only Andrew Scheer and Denise Savoie. Off to the sixth ballot.

5:03pm. Mr. Scheer is now standing in centre aisle, accepting handshakes from a procession of Conservatives. Fans of math may note that the Conservatives hold more than half of the seats in the House of Commons. Make of this what you will.

5:13pm. Fans of obscure procedural history will note that this equals 1994 as the second-longest election for Speaker since Parliament adopted this process in 1986.

5:37pm. Sixth ballot results are in … and the winner is Andrew Scheer. The House of Kids gets a Boy Speaker.

5:40pm. Mr. Scheer makes a good show of not really wanting the job as Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton drag him to the chair. Mr. Layton jabs him in the back with his cane and Mr. Harper gives him one last shove as he ascends to the throne. Mr. Plamondon cedes the spot and Speaker Scheer officially takes power. In doing so, he becomes the 35th, and youngest, individual to hold the position.

5:44pm. He humbly acknowledges the “great honour” conferred upon him. Turning to the gallery he notes the presence of his wife and infant son (the youngest of his four children) and his parents. He thanks all for the trust they have placed in him and manages his first “order” in response to some playful heckling from the government side. He understands, he says, that all are here to make Canada the best country in the world and vows to do his best to live up to the trust placed in him.

5:50pm. Kind words now from Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton and Bob Rae. Much hoping for civility and decorum and respect. The Prime Minister manages a hockey analogy. The Leader of the Opposition publicly commits for the official record that there will be no heckling from side. Mr. Rae says he will not commit to complete silence from his side, pronouncing himself a “profound realist.” He says he is looking forward to the “first sign of life” from the official opposition and will be waiting to see how long the vow of silence lasts. The NDP side seems not terribly impressed.

5:58pm. Final words now from Mr. Plamondon on behalf of the Bloc and, in her House debut, the Green’s Elizabeth May. Ms. May senses we have the makings of a more respectful Parliament and vows that, like Mr. Layton, she will commit that no one in the Green caucus will participate in heckling.

6:01pm. The Speaker offers a few more words of thanks and duly informs the House that the Governor General will be arriving on Parliament Hill at 2:30pm tomorrow and will proceed to the Senate to open the 41st Parliament. The House is thus duly adjourned.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-need-of-a-speaker/feed/23‘I’m asking my fellow MPs to imagine a Parliament that functions well’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-asking-my-fellow-mps-to-imagine-a-parliament-that-functions-well/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-asking-my-fellow-mps-to-imagine-a-parliament-that-functions-well/#commentsFri, 20 May 2011 17:58:55 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=193312The NDP’s Denise Savoie has officially entered the race to be the next Speaker of the House. From the news release:
“I’m running for Speaker with a singular focus on …

The NDP’s Denise Savoie has officially entered the race to be the next Speaker of the House. From the news release:

“I’m running for Speaker with a singular focus on raising the tone and quality of debate in Parliament, to restore the trust that Canadians deserve to have in their politicians and democratic institutions,” said Savoie.

As Assistant Deputy Speaker in the last Parliament Savoie launched a number of explicitly non-partisan initiatives aimed at fostering constructive and informed discussion on important topics, including workshops on climate change and the first all-party Parliamentary Arts Caucus. “I’m asking my fellow MPs to imagine a Parliament that functions well – where debate is not focused on scoring points, but rather on creating better, more inclusive public policy,” said Savoie.

As a fluently bilingual Franco-Manitoban who has lived in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and now in British Columbia, Savoie brings a pan-Canadian perspective to the Speaker’s Chair.

Of the seven MPs who are now in the race—Savoie, Andrew Scheer, Lee Richardson, Ed Holder, Barry Devolin, Merv Tweed and Dean Allison—five voted in favour of Michael Chong’s motion on Question Period reform. Mr. Scheer was in the Speaker’s chair at the time of the vote and Mr. Holder’s vote was paired.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-asking-my-fellow-mps-to-imagine-a-parliament-that-functions-well/feed/2Place your betshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/place-your-bets/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/place-your-bets/#commentsTue, 17 May 2011 15:37:34 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=192186The Canadian Press widens the current field to replace Peter Milliken as Speaker to six MPs, all of them Conservatives.
Ever-cheerful Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer, who has worked alongside Peter …

The Canadian Press widens the current field to replace Peter Milliken as Speaker to six MPs, all of them Conservatives.

Ever-cheerful Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer, who has worked alongside Peter Milliken as deputy speaker and assistant deputy speaker, is again trying his luck. He’s also the only functionally bilingual candidate among the Conservative MPs in the running. The NDP has said it believes the Speaker should be bilingual. ”I think back in 2004 I was quite the heckler, quite the partisan guy, and spending so many years in the chair has really taught me the importance of impartiality for the chair occupants but also a better personal understanding of what motivates other members of other parties,” said Scheer, who turns 31 on the weekend. ”(It’s) the idea that while you certainly might believe that your ideas and your policies are the best for Canada, not to take anything away from the opposition MPs who truly do want the same thing that you want — for Canada to be the best country in the world.”

The Liberal candidate in Manicougan has been dismissed over offensive remarks about Aboriginals. London West incumbent Ed Holder doesn’t want to debate health care. Calgary East incumbent Deepak Obhrai doesn’t want to debate his opponents at all. There is journalism drama in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock and sign drama in South Shore-St. Margaret’s. The candidates explain what matters most in Oakville and the candidates in Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon meet the Rotarians.

Conservative candidate Mark Strahl was asked about his “tainted” nomination and his apparent lack of “real world” business experience. Liberal candidate Diane Janzen was asked how she could be “truly a Liberal” with her Christian faith and her small-c conservatism. New Democratic candidate Gwen O’Mahony was asked about her party’s opposition to the purchase of fighter jets when Canadians are sending their sons and daughters “into harm’s way” overseas.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/apropos-of-nothing/feed/62Don Davies, Ed Holder and peace in the Middle Easthttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/don-davies-ed-holder-and-peace-in-the-middle-east/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/don-davies-ed-holder-and-peace-in-the-middle-east/#commentsSat, 17 Jan 2009 01:18:26 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://blog.macleans.ca/?p=29017Conservative Ed Holder’s been an MP for barely three months and already he’s got protesters occupying his constituency office. That has to be some sort of record.
Nonetheless, the prize…

Conservative Ed Holder’s been an MP for barely three months and already he’s got protesters occupying his constituency office. That has to be some sort of record.

Nonetheless, the prize for “Most Uncomfortable Interaction With Public Debate By A Rookie MP” surely belongs to the NDP’s Don Davies, as detailed in this delightful little tale from a rally in Vancouver.

The Courier describes the scene as follows.

Moments later, the NDP arrived. Don Davies, MP for Vancouver Kingsway, stepped up to the microphone and onto the political minefield of Middle East politics, where nerves are frayed and semantics matter.

Davies, whose suit and tie ensemble seemed oddly inappropriate, spoke for 30 seconds before his speech blew up in his face. After condemning the escalating violence in Gaza and calling for an Israeli ceasefire, he said “and Palestinians must also stop violence against Israel.”

A brief silence was followed by a smattering of boos. A bearded man, with an umbrella in one hand and a Palestinian flag in the other, shouted “Shame on you! Shame, shame!”

Davies abruptly surrendered the microphone and a female voice thundered from the loudspeaker. “Israel is waging war on the Palestinians! Our resistance will not be criminalized!”

The crowd cheered and chanted. Davies limped back to the mic. “My friends, do not take anything I’ve said to justify Israeli actions that we’ve seen.”

But the damage was done. The crowd, already suspicious of federal politicians, dismissed Davies with silence. Pale and wet, he descended the gallery steps, nervously scanned the crowd, and disappeared into the sea of umbrellas.